Quality of Experience Effects in Video Delivery

doi:10.12142/ZTECOM.201901005

Abstract

Abstract:

With the popularization of smartphones and high-speed networks, a larger number of users are getting used to watching videos online and have increasing requirements of video quality. Therefore, the video content delivery has become a progressively challenging task, especially for ultra-high-definition (UHD) videos and heterogonous networks. Recently, quality of experience (QoE), which represents the true visual experience of users, has shown its advantages in management of video delivery and thus attracted increasing attention. In a video delivery system, the user QoE can be greatly influenced by numerous effects from video sources to display terminals. In this paper, we first investigate the significant differences between quality of service (QoS) and QoE. In addition, we summarize the end-to-end QoE effects in video delivery and present their classification based on the deployment. We also specifically analyze the impacts of different kinds of factors on QoE in video transmission systems.

Key words: QoE, QoS, video delivery, video quality

CHEN Jinling, XU Yiwen, LIU Yisang, HUANG Huiwen, ZHUANG Zhongwen. Quality of Experience Effects in Video Delivery[J]. ZTE Communications, 2019, 17(1): 25-30.

Figures/Tables 2

References 46

[1]	WANG Z, BOVIK A C, SHEIKH H R , et al. Image Quality Assessment: From Error Visibility to Structural Similarity[J]. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2004,13(4):600-612. DOI: 10.1109/tip.2003.819861
[2]	Definitions of Terms Related to Quality of Service: ITU-T Recommendation E.800[S]. 2008
[3]	MOLLER S, RAAKE A , Eds. Quality of Experience: Advanced Concepts, Applications and Methods[M]. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2014
[4]	Definition of Quality of Experience (QoE), ITU TD 109rev2 (PLEN/12)[S]. 2007
[5]	MOLLER S . Quality Engineering—Qualität kommunikationstechnischer Systeme[M]. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010
[6]	CALLET P L, MOLLER S, PERKIS A , et al. Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience [R]. Novi Sad: European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003), 2013
[7]	HOßFELD T, SCHATZ R, BIERSACK E , et al. Internet Video Delivery in YouTube: From Traffic Measurements to Quality of Experience[M] //HOßFELD T, SCHATZ R, BIERSACK E, et al. eds. Data Traffic Monitoring and Analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013: 264-301. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-36784-7_11
[8]	REHMAN A, ZENG K, WANG Z . Display Device-Adapted Video Quality-of-Experience Assessment [C]// IS&T/SPIE Annual Symposium on Electronic Imaging. San Francisco, USA, SPIE 9394. DOI: 10.1117/12.2077917
[9]	MAIA O B, YEHIA H C, DE ERRICO L . A Concise Review of the Quality of Experience Assessment for Video Streaming[J]. Computer Communications, 2015,57:1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.comcom.2014.11.005
[10]	ZHAO T S, LIU Q, CHEN C W . QoE in Video Transmission: A User Experience-Driven Strategy[J]. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2017,19(1):285-302. DOI: 10.1109/comst.2016.2619982
[11]	LI T T, ZHANG H X, TIAN J , et al. QoE-Driven Centralized Scheduling for HTTP Adaptive Video Streaming Transmission over Wireless Networks [C]//9th International Conference on Wireless Communications and Signal Processing (WCSP). Nanjing, China, 2017: 1-6. DOI: 10.1109/WCSP.2017.8171114
[12]	AROUSSI S, BOUABANA-TEBIBEL T, MELLOUK A . Empirical QoE/QoS Correlation Model Based on Multiple Parameters for VoD Flows [C]//IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). Anaheim, CA, USA, 2012: 1963-1968. DOI: 10.1109/GLOCOM.2012.6503403
[13]	ALBERTI C, RENZI D, TIMMERER C , et al. Automated QoE Evaluation of Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP [C]//Fifth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Austria, 2013: 58-63. DOI: 10.1109/QoMEX.2013.6603211
[14]	MANSOURI T, NABAVI A, ZARE RAVASAN A , et al. A Practical Model for Ensemble Estimation of QoS and QoE in VoIP Services via Fuzzy Inference Systems and Fuzzy Evidence Theory[J]. Telecommunication Systems, 2016,61(4):861-873. DOI: 10.1007/s11235-015-0041-6
[15]	ANCHUEN P, UTHANSAKUL P, UTHANSAKUL M . QOE Model in Cellular Networks Based on QOS Measurements Using Neural Network Approach [C]//13th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON). Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2016: 1-5. DOI: 10.1109/ECTICon.2016.7561318
[16]	NING Z L, LIU Y Q, WANG X J , et al. A Novel QoS-Based QoE Evaluation Method for Streaming Video Service [C]//IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (IThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData). Exeter, UK, 2017: 956-961. DOI: 10.1109/iThings-GreenCom-CPSCom-SmartData.2017.147
[17]	GARCÍA-PINEDA M, SEGURA-GARCÍA J, FELICI-CASTELL S . A Holistic Modeling for QoE Estimation in Live Video Streaming Applications over LTE Advanced Technologies with Full and Non Reference Approaches[J]. Computer Communications, 2018,117:13-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.comcom.2017.12.010
[18]	VALERDI J, GONZÁLEZ A, GARRIDO F J . Automatic Testing and Measurement of QoE in IPTV Using Image and Video Comparison [C]//Fourth International Conference on Digital Telecommunications. Colmar, France, 2009: 75-81. DOI: 10.1109/ICDT.2009.21
[19]	WANG M M, ZHANG F, AGRAFIOTIS D . A very Low Complexity Reduced Reference Video Quality Metric Based on Spatio-Temporal Information Selection [C]//IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). Quebec City, Canada, 2015: 571-575. DOI: 10.1109/ICIP.2015.7350863
[20]	AABED M A, ALREGIB G . Reduced-Reference Perceptual Quality Assessment for Video Streaming [C]//IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). Quebec City, Canada, 2015: 2394-2398. DOI: 10.1109/ICIP.2015.7351231
[21]	YU M, ZHENG K H, JIANG G Y , et al. Binocular Perception Based Reduced-Reference Stereo Video Quality Assessment Method[J]. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 2016,38:246-255. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvcir.2016.03.010
[22]	CHEN Q G, JIN Y H, YANG T . A Supervised No-Reference QOE Assessment Model on IPTV Services [C]//4th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Intelligence Systems (CCIS). Beijing, China, 2016: 272-277. DOI: 10.1109/CCIS.2016.7790268
[23]	TORRES VEGA M, MOCANU D C, STAVROU S , et al. Predictive No-Reference Assessment of Video Quality[J]. Signal Processing: Image Communication, 2017,52:20-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.image.2016.12.001
[24]	ZHANG H, LI F, LI N . Compressed-Domain-Based No-Reference Video Quality Assessment Model Considering Fast Motion and Scene Change[J]. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2017,76(7):9485-9502. DOI: 10.1007/s11042-016-3558-0
[25]	LEBRETON P, RAAKE A, BARKOWSKY M , et al. Evaluating Depth Perception of 3D Stereoscopic Videos[J]. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2012,6(6):710-720. DOI: 10.1109/jstsp.2012.2213236 DOI URL
[26]	NUR YILMAZ G . A no Reference Depth Perception Assessment Metric for 3D Video[J]. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2015,74(17):6937-6950. DOI: 10.1007/s11042-014-1945-y
[27]	OU Y F, XUE Y Y, WANG Y . Q-STAR: A Perceptual Video Quality Model Considering Impact of Spatial, Temporal, and Amplitude Resolutions[J]. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2014,23(6):2473-2486. DOI: 10.1109/tip.2014.2303636 DOI URL
[28]	BOITARD R, POURAZAD M T, NASIOPOULOS P . Evaluation of Chroma Subsampling for High Dynamic Range Video Compression [C]//IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems (ICECS). Monte Carlo, Monaco, 2016: 696-699. DOI: 10.1109/ICECS.2016.7841297
[29]	LI M, SONG J B, HUI L . A Determining Method of Frame Rate and Resolution to Boost the Video Live QoE [C]//2nd International Conference on Multimedia and Image Processing (ICMIP). Wuhan, China, 2017: 206-209. DOI: 10.1109/ICMIP.2017.26
[30]	ASAN A, ROBITZA W, MKWAWA I H , et al. Impact of Video Resolution Changes on QoE for Adaptive Video Streaming [C]//2017 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME). Hong Kong, China, 2017: 499-504. DOI: 10.1109/ICME.2017.8019297
[31]	FRNDA J, VOZNAK M, SEVCIK L . Impact of Packet Loss and Delay Variation on the Quality of Real-Time Video Streaming[J]. Telecommunication Systems, 2016,62(2):265-275. DOI: 10.1007/s11235-015-0037-2
[32]	MAEDA Y, ISHIBASHI Y, FUKUSHIMA N . QoE Assessment of Sense of Presence in Networked Virtual Environment with Haptic and Auditory Senses: Influence of Network Delay [C]//IEEE 3rd Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE). Tokyo, Japan, 2014: 679-683. DOI: 10.1109/GCCE.2014. 7031181
[33]	NUNOME T, FURUKAWA K . The Effect of Bandwidth Allocation Methods on QoE of Multi-View Video and Audio IP Transmission [C]//IEEE 22nd International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD). Lund, Sweden, 2017: 1-6. DOI: 10.1109/CAMAD.2017.8031625
[34]	BEGLUK T, HUSIC J B, BARAKOVIC S . Machine Learning-Based QoE Prediction for Video Streaming over LTE Network [C]//17th International Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA (INFOTEH). East Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 2018: 1-5. DOI: 10.1109/INFOTEH.2018.8345519
[35]	GUTIÉRREZ J, PÉREZ P, JAUREGUIZAR F , et al. Subjective Assessment of the Impact of Transmission Errors in 3DTV Compared to HDTV [C]//3DTV Conference: the True Vision—Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video (3DTV-CON). Antalya, Turkey, 2011: 1-4. DOI: 10.1109/3DTV.2011.5877209
[36]	BEYER J, MIRUCHNA V , MÖLLER S. Assessing the Impact of Display Size, Game Type, and Usage Context on Mobile Gaming QOE [C]//Sixth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). Singapore, Singapore, 2014: 69-70. DOI: 10.1109/QoMEX.2014.6982297
[37]	VUCIC D, SKORIN-KAPOV L . The Impact of Mobile Device Factors on QoE for Multi-Party Video Conferencing via WebRTC [C]//13th International Conference on Telecommunications (ConTEL). Graz, Austria, 2015: 1-8. DOI: 10.1109/ConTEL.2015.7231206
[38]	JEGANATAN F, FRANCIS W, NUNOME T . QoE Assessment of Multi-View Video and Audio Simultaneous IP Transmission: The Effect of User Interfaces [C]//International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC). Busan, South Korea, 2014: 466-471. DOI: 10.1109/ICTC.2014.6983182
[39]	EDSTROM J, CHEN D L, WANG J H , et al. Luminance-Adaptive Smart Video Storage System [C]//IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). Montreal, Canada, 2016: 734-737. DOI: 10.1109/ISCAS.2016. 7527345
[40]	TRIYASON T, KRATHU W . The Impact of Screen Size Toward QoE of Cloud-Based Virtual Desktop[J]. Procedia Computer Science, 2017,111:203-208. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.06.054
[41]	BARAKOVIC S, SKORIN-KAPOV L . Survey of Research on Quality of Experience Modelling for Web Browsing[J]. Quality and User Experience, 2017,2:6. DOI: 10.1007/s41233-017-0009-2
[42]	GUNTUKU S C, LIN W S, SCOTT M J , et al. Modelling the Influence of Personality and Culture on Affect and Enjoyment in Multimedia [C]//International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII). Xi'an, China, 2015: 236-242. DOI: 10.1109/ACII.2015.7344577
[43]	MURRAY N, LEE B, QIAO Y S , et al. The Influence of Human Factors on Olfaction Based Mulsemedia Quality of Experience [C]//Eighth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). Lisbon, Portugal, 2016: 1-6. DOI: 10.1109/QoMEX.2016.7498975
[44]	MURRAY N, MUNTEAN G M, QIAO Y S , et al. Modeling User Quality of Experience of Olfaction-Enhanced Multimedia[J]. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 2018,64(2):539-551. DOI: 10.1109/tbc.2018.2825297
[45]	SONG J R, YANG F Z, ZHOU Y C , et al. QoE Evaluation of Multimedia Services Based on Audiovisual Quality and User Interest[J]. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2016,18(3):444-457. DOI: 10.1109/tmm.2016.2520090
[46]	EYNARD R, PALLOT M, CHRISTMANN O , et al. Impact of Verbal Communication on User Experience in 3D Immersive Virtual Environments [C]// IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation/International Technology Management Conference (ICE/ITMC). Belfast, UK, 2015: 1-8. DOI: 10.1109/ICE.2015.7438679

Taxonomy		QoE influence factors
Host	Content factors	Temporal/spatial requirements, color depth, texture, 2D/3D, content reliability, artifacts, etc.
Host	Media factors	Encoding, resolution, sampling rate, frame rate, media synchronization, etc.
Channel	Network factors	Delay, jitter, loss, error rate, bandwidth, throughput, path selection, resource requirements, scheduling, zapping time, hand-off, etc.
Channel	Other factors	Pricing, etc.
Terminal	Device factors	Decoding, error concealment, zooming, rendering, display size, screen resolution, color depth, user interface, CPU and memory, battery, etc.
Terminal	Other factors	Luminance, viewing distance, movement, interactivity, personalization, security, mobility, etc.
User	Physiological factors	Gender, age, heart rate, electrodermal activity, etc.
User	Psychological factors	Attention, interest, personality, mood, pre-conceptions, user expectation/goal, etc.

Taxonomy		QoE influence factors
Host	Content factors	Temporal/spatial requirements, color depth, texture, 2D/3D, content reliability, artifacts, etc.
Host	Media factors	Encoding, resolution, sampling rate, frame rate, media synchronization, etc.
Channel	Network factors	Delay, jitter, loss, error rate, bandwidth, throughput, path selection, resource requirements, scheduling, zapping time, hand-off, etc.
Channel	Other factors	Pricing, etc.
Terminal	Device factors	Decoding, error concealment, zooming, rendering, display size, screen resolution, color depth, user interface, CPU and memory, battery, etc.
Terminal	Other factors	Luminance, viewing distance, movement, interactivity, personalization, security, mobility, etc.
User	Physiological factors	Gender, age, heart rate, electrodermal activity, etc.
User	Psychological factors	Attention, interest, personality, mood, pre-conceptions, user expectation/goal, etc.